It's decent, promising, but needs a lot of work. Missions are mostly filler with few interesting scripted events. It's passable, but I'm sure they can do better, and I'd rather have quality not quantity. I hope the missions going forward are better than Ch 1.

Map size and unit counts are too small imo. I suspect the unit count and map size is hindered by the PSP's hardware. It's easy to get slowdown even with a few units on screen. I would really love to see this on Vita instead of PSP with larger maps, more units, less slowdown, etc.

The UI is missing features found in 2nd OG and Z2-2, which slows down combat speed. Menus have transition effects and load times that further slow things down. Some of this can be disabled in the options screen, but it doesn't help much. This is disappointing after the better UI/combat speed of 2nd OG and Z2-2.

The microtransactions and repetable missions do encourage grinding, but the game still keeps track of your turn counts. It also keeps track of both your # of unique missions cleared and your total # cleared, allowing you to tell if the player has repeated a mission. With those three stats you can tell how many missions were repeated and the average turncount, which is a bit better than no stat tracking at all.

+interesting NEO mechanics+better stats tracking+best animations of any 3D SRW+lots of series represented

I agree with you. The Agarest War 2 battle system looks more interesting. I don't think they can get the SRPG feel right putting all the fights on tiny grids like Agarest War 1. It's not like it's Heroes of Might and Magic.

Nobody's opinions are facts, and I've never pretended my opinions are facts here. I've done no name calling, no nasty words, no rude strawman arguments, no passive aggressiveness, no all caps, nothing. I've made my arguments in a neutral fashion. I'm not trying to be condescending or "nothing but negative" at all. I still don't know how someone could take it that way or think it's ok to be rude in response.

As always, thank you for enlightening us unwashed heathens. We must all just be hallucinating when we disagree with you.

I've done no name calling, no nasty words, no rude strawman arguments, no passive aggressiveness, nothing. I've made my arguments in a neutral fashion. I'm not trying to be condescending or "nothing but negative" at all.

No. The ranking criteria is designed around the AI's actions. If IS intentionally meant to design a game around faulty AI then they wouldn't have fixed it in the later games.

And for the love of god, when I pointed out the idea of taking out a Fighter by surrounding it with Infantry, I was not talking about efficiency! I was referring to my greater need to suspend my disbelief while playing AW over FE (and also to a certain Webcomic Strip that I'm too lazy to dig up at the moment).

If the AI didn't focus on APCs in AW1, quite a few maps would be impossible to S rank. Changing the AI would drastically alter how the maps play out, and may make some of them impossible. Figuring out the AI is part of solving some of the maps, it's not a matter of "flawed" or "fixed". If you don't figure the AI out, regardless of whether you consider its behavior "flawed", you're not getting a S rank. Furthermore, you don't know why they decided to change the AI in later games. It's impossible to read the developer's minds about their "intent", unfortunately.

Appeal to realism in Advance Wars vs Fire Emblem? Your belief should already be highly suspended when playing these sorts of games, imo. There is no enemy pass through in Fire Emblem either, and you could make the same sorts of arguments. Not that I think appeal to realism makes much sense in these sorts of games.

Also, if you're going to disagree with someone on the threads, that's fine, but there are a million better ways than writing something like "one more correction" and being as abrasive as you typically are, mrjrpgfan. Be more respectful of other people's opinions, and if you disagree, say so in a way that isn't demeaning to what someone else has said.

If I'm issuing a correction, it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. What opinions am I not being respectful of? What exactly are you finding demeaning? I've seen plenty of disrespecting of opinions on this board, but they haven't been coming from me.

Hey, you asked so I assumed you weren't familiar with RNG abuse. If all you can do is condescend and complain in response then enjoy talking to yourself!

"enjoy talking to myself"? You're insulting and then taunting me. What exactly did you find condescending or complaining about my post? My posts are neutral and non personal, and I didn't call anyone anything.

Levels in AW are designed with forming strategies around the AI's behavior in mind. If the AI didn't focus APCs some levels would be impossible to S rank. Dismissing AW over its AI behavior is a poor reason imo considering levels are designed around manipulating it. In fact taking advantage of poor AI is a keystone of most tactics games in general, so there's no reason to single out AW.

Once again surrounding a fighter with infantry and waiting for it to explode from lack of fuel is unrealistic at best, and I challenge you to find a single AW campaign or war room level where it's a viable strategy for getting a top score.

The fact that I can have derpery like surrounding a Fighter with Infantry and watch it helplessly sit there until it blows up, or diverting an otherwise decisive enemy advance with a single APC is the reason I'm gonna have to go with Fire Emblem on this one.

That's an unrealistic and not very strategic scenario. You can theoretically do the same thing in FE by surrounding an archer with melee units.